Stick is simply more Zen

still an action either way

But yeah

You're right

So is zen your deal?

It strikes me that Brett accepts so very few Nietzschean concepts and precepts, because he defines himself as Nietzschean (And I do not mean to belittle, I just speak what appears to me)

Interesting thing is that Nietzsche comprehends Buddhism as Phenomenalism which is kind of an interesting take, (and certainly more concise and measured than otherwise), but not entirely acceptable

It kinda works as an overgeneralized description of its methodology.

What grinds my gears is that categorical "imperatives" are still provided as explanations for things which well - demand explanation

People still explain reasoning with itself

Neoplatonism is often used as a backdoor, to use Brett's term, to the "same old" , for example, Catholicism

People still talk of "goodness" in the old way, where it is entirely subject to idiosyncrasies

I saw some spergy academic peer reviewed crap that missed the point in talking about Nagarjuna in concluding that he needed to defend nominalism and I'm like... did you even fucking read his shit?

Academic writing are good because they lead to you references which afterwards you read for yourself

Academic writings on most topics, and in particular Eastern Philosophy, is like a short description of a book on Amazon, you will read it to find what it is about, but then you will dismiss it and read the book for the most part

Wait who talks about categorical imperatives in regards to Buddhism?

You're right they are only good for the bibliography

No, that was a difression on what I said about Brett and NIetzsche

oh ok

Like, Nietzsche's and Brett's concepts of "goodness" are opposed

Brett's is Platonic, whereas NIetzsche almost hated Plato with passion

To be fair Brett has his own take regardless of influence

Another digression: the necessity to "reinvent" things without any real need to do so

Example, Catholicism (Or Orthodoxy for that matter)

Yes, I understand that Catholicism did come up with thinkers who embraced fully the transcendentalist viewpoint, beyond dogma, simple morality, et cetera

But in order to do that, they, and any susbequent thinker has to *reinvent* Catholicism

and then to insist that Catholicism is just that

For example, to embrace Qaballah from the same viewpoint, you do not really need to reinvent it at all

And then, if they are devout Catholics, which is always a handicap, they will insist that embarking on the path of reinventing Catholicism is the only proper, moral and right path

In other words, "Thou shall..."

Maybe if Catholicism didn't treat its bundle of abstract generalizations as the Absolute Truth it wouldn't have provoked so many responses in the form of `no, these abstract generalizations are the truer truth`

No, I mean i get it, Catholicism could have just >"branched" just as many faiths "branched" in India, and even all these branches could still be considered as belonging to same "religion"

Reflective people end up uncovering problems with those abstractions or notice realities that don't fit and away it goes

But this was *never* realized, it almost have, but then was seized in its tracks

For sure man

Catholic world of phenomena and symbols for example, everything was quickly covered up with "dogmatist" approach

Like the Magdalene mystery, or the apocrypha

People can talk about "esoteric" path as much as they want, but Apocrypha are simply *not* Catholicism

Also, Magdaelene mystery was something that had a completely Aryan form, I mean a "whore" was made into a saint and gave birth to Europe in Provance and was the maid of the holy grail I mean everything was there and then it was suddenly covered up

So, it never materialized

MODS ARE FUCKING CUCKS